Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

[Handyman]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Are you high? please tell me you are high.

Nope...don't do drugs of any kind.

Feel free to explain to me how I was wrong though. Did the tape that was played on the news and everywhere else not exist? Did Walker not say the things he said? Does it not prove the guy is lying through his ***** about pretty much everything?

Just because you plug yoour ears, close your eyes and stomp your feet doesn't make the truth all of a sudden disappear

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Whereas union honchos taking worker dollars to push their political agendas to me is very different and the workers who oppose the union political activities have no recourse.

Except in right to work states. And except for the fact they get to vote for their union leaders and otherwise get to give input into what their union leaders should be doing at the local union meetings.

But this is exactly why I hate the GOP right now. I am not a union man, and yet the absolute hardline, no holds barred stance taken by the tea party idiots and their ilk has got me siding with the unions on this. For the love of god, stop the derp.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

This is a little more than PSAs.

And? Are you saying it is wrong to promote good health? Maybe I am missing something but even in the part you quoted yourself it didn't say anything about being forced to do anything or making rules about what people eat, just the same stuff that has been going on since I was a kid. (insert food here is bad for you, use less of it and exercise more) Are you upset that taxpayer money went to it? Do you honestly want to pretend it never has before?

This still all seems like tilting at windmills by the Right. And seriously, I cannot believe this is the stance they are taking. Even if it isnt their intention, politically speaking it just looks like they could give a crap about the fact that our country is friggin fat and unhealthy.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

And? Are you saying it is wrong to promote good health? Maybe I am missing something but even in the part you quoted yourself it didn't say anything about being forced to do anything or making rules about what people eat, just the same stuff that has been going on since I was a kid. (insert food here is bad for you, use less of it and exercise more) Are you upset that taxpayer money went to it? Do you honestly want to pretend it never has before?

This still all seems like tilting at windmills by the Right.

I don't have much of a problem with it. A bit annoyed that it's using stimulus money. (Hey how's unemployment looking now?) But that's it.

I was just pointing out, as I said in the original post, that's it more than Michelle Obama cutting PSAs.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Except in right to work states. And except for the fact they get to vote for their union leaders and otherwise get to give input into what their union leaders should be doing at the local union meetings.

But this is exactly why I hate the GOP right now. I am not a union man, and yet the absolute hardline, no holds barred stance taken by the tea party idiots and their ilk has got me siding with the unions on this. For the love of god, stop the derp.

So you would support every state becoming a right to work state then?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Except in right to work states. And except for the fact they get to vote for their union leaders and otherwise get to give input into what their union leaders should be doing at the local union meetings.

But this is exactly why I hate the GOP right now. I am not a union man, and yet the absolute hardline, no holds barred stance taken by the tea party idiots and their ilk has got me siding with the unions on this. For the love of god, stop the derp.

The GOP is obviously not fighting this fight to protect the sacred right of people to decide where their money goes. They're fighting it because unions are a Dem constituency. It's why the GOP does anything. Pure power grab.

When we have public financing of elections and outlaw corporate bribery of politicians, and when people vote rather than dollars, sure, I'll be more amenable to the principled position, but until then, give me a break, this is a just another partisan maneuver.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I don't have much of a problem with it. A bit annoyed that it's using stimulus money. (Hey how's unemployment looking now?) But that's it.

I was just pointing out, as I said in the original post, that's it more than Michelle Obama cutting PSAs.

Ok...so what?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

The GOP is obviously not fighting this fight to protect the sacred right of people to decide where their money goes. They're fighting it because unions are a Dem constituency. It's why the GOP does anything. Pure power grab.

When we have public financing of elections and outlaw corporate bribery of politicians, sure, I'll be more amenable to the principled position, but until then, give me a break, this is a just another partisan maneuver.

While of course the Dems are fighting against it because of pure sympathy for the working man.

You don't think the fact that the bill will cost unions tons of $$$ in dues is why hacks like Richard Trumka are coming in here?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Except in right to work states. And except for the fact they get to vote for their union leaders and otherwise get to give input into what their union leaders should be doing at the local union meetings.

But this is exactly why I hate the GOP right now. I am not a union man, and yet the absolute hardline, no holds barred stance taken by the tea party idiots and their ilk has got me siding with the unions on this. For the love of god, stop the derp.

Many states aren't right to work states, including where we lived, so, no my dad didn't have the option of not paying, and neither do millions of others who don't have right to work protection.

And there's no way you change the NEA or Teamsters, etc. in the real world. You think the folks who run those unions want to hear squat from their members, especially ones that disagree with their heavy duty politicking? That's ridiculous. Come back to the real world.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

"When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children." - Albert Shanker.


All about the kids right there.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

While of course the Dems are fighting against it because of pure sympathy for the working man.

You don't think the fact that the bill will cost unions tons of $$$ in dues is why hacks like Richard Trumka are coming in here?

You're making my point. It's politics by other means, not principle. So don't expect one side to evaluate on the basis of right when the other is just using might.

This argument cuts both ways -- I wouldn't expect the GOP to do anything principled (boy, would I not! ) that accidentally benefited the Dems, either.

A compromise is just that: the adults horse-trade, nearly always in the backroom away from the radio listeners and stormtroopers and True Believers and other Useful Idiots, in the interest of moving forward. There's no compromise here, it's just an ultimatum. And the way to respond to an ultimatum is to throw logs in the road and fire from cover.

A generation of being told they are literally doing the Will of God and/or The Founders has completely warped the "conservative" (really: reactionary) mind to the point where it simply identifies all its petty whims with The Truth. That's why they have such an aversion to compromise. Until they grow up, there's no way to talk to them as adults.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So I expect you voted for McCain then right? Because Obama took that dirty, dirty, non-public financing.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So you would support every state becoming a right to work state then?

Generally speaking, yes. I wouldn't force it on them, though.

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Many states aren't right to work states, including where we lived, so, no my dad didn't have the option of not paying, and neither do millions of others who don't have right to work protection.

And there's no way you change the NEA or Teamsters, etc. in the real world. You think the folks who run those unions want to hear squat from their members, especially ones that disagree with their heavy duty politicking? That's ridiculous. Come back to the real world.

There's no way you can change the partners at Goldman Sachs or board of directors as Boeing, etc. in the real world. You think the folks who run those investment banks and military-industrial companies want to hear squat from their shareholders (or rank and file employees), especially ones that disagree with their heavy duty politicking? That's ridiculous. Come back to the real world.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

There's no way you can change the partners at Goldman Sachs or board of directors as Boeing,.

You can change the rep who keeps giving them my tax dollars

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

You can change the rep who keeps giving them my tax dollars

Yeah, and you can do that with unions, too. And you can even do it without actually busting the union, just like you can stop funding the M-I complex without destroying all the contractors.

I'll put it this way, I'm all for busting the unions so long as we get to be a "trust buster" too. That means the big banks get broken up so none of them are "too big to fail," the media conglomerates get broken up so they are no longer oligarchies, etc.

We did it before with Ma Bell, Standard Oil, etc. and can do it again.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

There's no way you can change the partners at Goldman Sachs or board of directors as Boeing, etc. in the real world. You think the folks who run those investment banks and military-industrial companies want to hear squat from their shareholders (or rank and file employees), especially ones that disagree with their heavy duty politicking? That's ridiculous. Come back to the real world.

At least come up with your own lines!

The change we've been talking about is the ability to change your government who hands out dollars in various ways. Control of government does change, with different policies of various sorts being put in place, though we'd both probably agree with each other that not enough change happens where it is needed. But, that's still a far cry from unions. When has a union every changed its bent on political issues? I can't think of it ever happening. They are some of the most entrenched special interests around. So, the people who are forced to join a union and then forced to fund that union's politicking, have no options and are in a very different spot than voters who can throw the bums out.

Yet another subject where you're vocally in support of the liberals, yet you claim that you are mostly conservative. hmmmmm.......

 

[unofan]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Yet another subject where you're vocally in support of the liberals, yet you claim that you are mostly conservative. hmmmmm.......

Except that's a mischaracterization.

GOP wants higher premiums for insurance, higher pension contributions, and a contractual limit on annual pay raises. They're doing so because of budgetary issues. That's 80% of the battle here and I agree with the GOP as far as that 80% goes.

They also want to eliminate their ability to collectively bargain on anything meaningful and require unions to re-vote their membership every year. Neither of those provisions serve any budgetary purpose and are meant solely to bust the unions.

Personally, I am not a union man and would not voluntarily become one. Nonetheless, I support the right of workers to form a union. My support for the Wisconsin protesters is limited to the sole point that Walker a) is trying to eliminate their ability to collectively bargain at all and b)that Walker refuses to negotiate like an actual adult.

Yet because I only support Walker on the sensible part of his plan (the fiscal part) and not the union busting part (the tea party lunacy), that means I'm taking the liberal side? The only reason it looks that way is because everything sensible is already agreed to by all sides, and the only thing left for "debate" is the far-right derp that is the unnecessary busting of the union.

Put another way, and as an analogy, I support Fred Phelp's right to free speech. Does that somehow mean I support Fred Phelps? Likewise, just because I support the unions' right to exist, does not mean I support the unions themselves on the substantive issues.

If the GOP wants me back as a registered member, they need to stop with the bullshiat overreaching. Until then, I guess I'm a registered independent for the long haul.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

If the GOP wants me back as a registered member, they need to stop with the bullshiat overreaching. Until then, I guess I'm a registered independent for the long haul.

Don't try to hide behind logic and reason - you're a liberal!

I forgot to ask, what size do you need for your "I'm a Liberal" T-shirt?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

They also want to eliminate their ability to collectively bargain on anything meaningful and require unions to re-vote their membership every year. Neither of those provisions serve any budgetary purpose and are meant solely to bust the unions.

I get the issue with the CB, don't agree, but whatever. However, why the problem with unions needing to revote their membership each year?

It's also crazy to say CB has nothing to do with the budget. A good example of this was illustrated in the WSJ this morning. In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin state pension plan provides for a 6.8% employer contribution and a 6.2% employee contribution. Seems okay I suppose. But through collective bargaining , the Milwaukee teachers union got an agreement requiring the district to pick up the employee contribution as well, so now taxpayers are footing the entire 13%. You're saying that wasn't a direct impact on the budget, directly resulting from collective bargaining?